Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post
    Even saying that or that "he can get somewhere in the same atmosphere," is a bit of a stretch to me, although I understand it's all subjective. From my perspective, it would be akin to saying that CJ Miles is somewhere in the same atmosphere as Paul George.
    I'm not sure if I think you think to lowly of Sabonis or to highly of Jokic. Or maybe its I think to highly of Sabonis or to lowly of Jokic but either way if Sabonis can be 1/2 of the player Jokic is then I will be happy.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I'm not sure if I think you think to lowly of Sabonis or to highly of Jokic. Or maybe its I think to highly of Sabonis or to lowly of Jokic but either way if Sabonis can be 1/2 of the player Jokic is then I will be happy.
      I mean, Jokic might be the best center in the NBA and with his skill set that is saying a lot.

      Comment


      • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        I'm not sure if I think you think to lowly of Sabonis or to highly of Jokic. Or maybe its I think to highly of Sabonis or to lowly of Jokic but either way if Sabonis can be 1/2 of the player Jokic is then I will be happy.
        How do you quantify "half the player"...would you also say "quarter of a player" or "Oh, Shaq's about tree fiddy Roy Hibberts?"

        I've always wondered about the statement
        "man, PG has been really good."

        Comment


        • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

          Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
          How do you quantify "half the player"...would you also say "quarter of a player" or "Oh, Shaq's about tree fiddy Roy Hibberts?"

          I've always wondered about the statement
          Got Dom Loch Ness Monster

          Comment


          • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

            Hey guys at least I didn't say he was going to be Larry Bird.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

              "Don't look now the Pacers aren't all that bad..."

              ...just mostly.

              Comment


              • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                Count me a Sabonis believer. He's a plus passer (and thats not just an inference based on the name), I think he will be an above average rebounder, can score in the post, and seems to like contact. Not projecting an all-star, but plenty of those talents look good next to myles long term.
                "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

                Comment


                • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                  How about that Nate McMillan? HOF coach?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Hey guys at least I didn't say he was going to be Larry Bird.
                    I suppose that is aimed at me, so I'll respond. Sabonis plays like a veteran and some of his foot and body movement reminds me of Bird. His high reach shot is Detlef like. This doesn't mean that I think he is Bird or Detlef. If anything, it means we have a white dude that's highly skilled that reminds me of acouple other white dudes which one of them possessed similar skill at the age of 20. That's all!

                    Let's hope Sabonis harnesses that fire for many years to come!

                    Oh and btw, for those that can't see it, sorry about ya. But I do have an eye for successful basketball players. Only strike out I've made in the last decade is DC, I did think he'd get much better. Which in some ways, he has.
                    Last edited by Pacer Fan; 07-23-2017, 12:45 PM.
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment


                    • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                      Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                      I'm sure that I could find similar articles written about the Nets every year. I think that Conrad just came up with the team marketing slogan: Pacers Basketball, Not All That Bad!

                      Just looked at the 2015-2016 Orlando Magic roster. https://www.basketball-reference.com.../ORL/2016.html. It looks a lot like ours. Talented young bigs, Vic at the 2. Our advantage is that Sabonis and Turner as a combo may be better than Vucevic and whoever (old Channing Frye), but they had Evan Fournier in the backcourt and Tobias Harris on the wing. The PG situation is similar (Payton is better than DC now, but he was still learning then). They won 35 games that year. That I think is our ceiling, unless Sabonis shows real growth and/or Leaf is better than we think. I'll watch and go to a game or two, but I'm ready to be excited about 5 game win streaks all over again.
                      Great example. I often wish the Pacers fanbase would keep one eye more on what non superstar teams are doing to put our own issues/potential in perspective.

                      The very fact that Bruon thinks of DC as the PG to compare to Teague is a sign he's way out of touch. CoJo is clearly much closer to the comparison and the natural starter, if for no other reason than he's on the upswing rather than having already topped out and starting to drift out of the NBA in 4 years. And regardless, Teague's handles and ability to drive were elite. While I preferred Hill for his fit with PG and the roster more, there was no doubt that in overall talent the 2 are comparable, just skilled in different ways. DC was never in the area of Hill at all.

                      Then to say that Thad and Myles didn't work? That doesn't make any sense. If anything we saw a huge impact when Thad got injured, carrying over to his return when his wrist was still clearly holding him back from full impact. Thad allowed Myles to block-hawk a lot more and covered up a lot of the youthful mistakes that Myles makes. You put Myles and Sabonis on the frontline together and your defensive awareness goes in the toilet. Sure, 3 years from now that could be a beast pairing, but not today.


                      The Magic comparison is especially troubling because they had Vuce in his prime go-to scoring level. That gave them some level of identity on the offensive end, whereas this Pacers roster will have none. Yes the Myles pick and pop will be something, but you don't build a primary offense around that. That's typically the supplemental threat that keeps the defense honest when they try to stop your primary attack.

                      You'll have some CoJo and DC pick and pops for 10-18 points total but again that's not an offense. You'll have Lance PnR with guys like Seraphin and perhaps Thad, but that's probably your bench offense and not the primary identity, simply because I doubt you want guys like Seraphin being your primary offensive touch guys.


                      Oladipo is a bit of something to work off of as a break down scorer, but up till now he hasn't been good enough to be the main guy (thus the Magic's issues partially).


                      The team is overloaded with "kinda okay" and that's not enough to win matchups in a way that demands that the defense do something they aren't comfortable with. No one draws doubles or forces awkward switches, etc. And that's going to be a problem. PG could frustrate with his care of the ball and not always being great at getting others involved, but he 100% drew double teams if for no other reason than teams didn't respect any of the other scorers. That issue is not improved with these moves.


                      I'm not mad about what Pritch has done. It's the nature of the circumstances. But let's not sugarcoat it with visions of grandeur in which our hamburger is actually filet mignon. Just grab the ketchup and fries and prepare to enjoy a backyard cookout instead of a 5 star meal.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                        BTW I kept track of Sabonis specifically because I finally did my OKC visit last year which was fairly early in the season. I sat down near the court with some of the most aware fans you could ask for (at least regarding their team) and they were pretty enthusiastic about Sabonis, while not thinking of him as a great player at the moment. I couldn't disagree. Definitely feels like the right kind of raw talent that can become a solid impact guy.

                        BECOME, not is. If Bruno wrote "don't look now but the Pacers might be right back in this thing in 2 seasons" then I'm listening.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                          Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
                          Not too many people picked us to win 50 last year. Vegas gave us 43.5
                          45.5 when I was there and if I could afford to float Vegas a $5K loan for 6 months I would have done it in heartbeat because that number was stupid. I felt zero risk but didn't bother putting down 200-300 because that amount would be eaten up in the costs of flying back out to collect, which has to be done in something like 60 days and I had/have no plans to be out there anytime soon.

                          Still I regret not going into debt to make it happen for a larger amount that would be worth collecting.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                            If Sabonis gives us the Marc Gasoline effect then we will smell like roses. Losing Pau hurt Memphis and they were underwhelmed in the return. But Marc gave them a competing team when Pau never really did. I hope Sabonis and Victor gives us a positive return and we build a team with a sound roster. Memphis had a great team but like the Pacers with West/Hibbs they were slow. Plus they never had the shooting we had. And this is where we are at. We need perimeter shooting and rebounding.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                              Pretty interesting article from IBJ on Pacers ticket sales


                              https://www.ibj.com/articles/64699-w...ife-fieldhouse

                              Comment


                              • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                                A quote from OMalia who has been there since the ABA days...

                                "“The days of a team building around a certain player like Reggie Miller are gone. We have to face that,” O’Malia said. “I wish professional sports wasn’t the way they are, with players moving all over the place all the time, and things seemingly stacked against the small markets. But that’s the way it is, so we have to live with it.”



                                This issue most be addressed at the next negotiations with the players.
                                Franchising a player(s) is the solution.
                                May cost the owners something to get that.
                                Will help way more teams than are hurt by it
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X